Inequality is perceived as unjust when structural and social conditions prevent social mobility – and the fulfillment of human creativity, initiative, and ambition – based on merit. The debateon inequality at a global and national level today arguably critiques the power of political and economic elites to ensure social reproduction and continued, if not increasing, control over resources.This effort forcibly narrows capacity to generate a more egalitarian society,where resources are under public control and decision-making is intended to ensure distribution and greater individualopportunity.Inequality based on income may be regarded as expected because of differences in individual ability. However, the terms ‘just’ or ‘unjust’ imply a moral order and social regard and thus, though idealistic, any diminishment of human dignity and respect due to economic position should never be considered acceptable.

The debate on inequality has increasingly focused on assets due in part to the work of Thomas Picketty (2013) and, on a less intellectual level, the increasingly visible disparity between lifestyles, access to political power, and social reproduction through education, jobs, and inheritance. At the same time, there is sustained discussion in the public sphere at an international level regarding salarydifferences between executives and other employees, as well as stagnant salaries in the public sector and often negligible reimbursement within charities. The political consequence has been, most obviously, the rise of populism and faith-based parties, whether Islamist or the evangelical far right in the United States. The latter offer social services and transcendent principles to guide political transformation. A more subtle political consequence has been increasing consciousness, in a Marxist sense, of class position and division, especially amongst young people, and more specifically, a desire to connect management of financial, environmental, and social resources to individual opportunity. Today, the capacity to make a life choice is increasingly an indicator of inequality. Moreover, this capacity signifies not just a lack of opportunities for social mobility but also the inability even to maintain existing family status.The new forms of politicization, and among young people in particular, which are emerging resist limitations on life choices, or more brutally, subjugation to structural forces like public sector budget cuts or the rise in insecure, temporary work contracts

One way to understand reactions to inequality and injustice is to look at choices of leadership, rather than particular policies or ideologies. The experience of inequality has led to a personalization of politics, whereby the leader represents future security and stability. Even if the opposite occurs in practice, the fundamental, even desperate, desire for security - whether economic, political, environmental, or social – may sustain the particular leader. The challenge to this trend may come from offering ideas and sets of practices that can attract popular support and sustain democratic, inclusive progress. These ideas and practices have to demonstrate a tangible, local impact on life chances and inequality in order to succeed, as the era of utopian ideals, including neoliberalism, is finished. Instead, any challenge to populism and authoritarian leadership should be pragmatic, though without sacrificing ideas and the necessity of thinking both critically and creatively.

Education rates in Morocco have improved considerably over the past twenty years. The relationship between education and equality is multi-layered. First, education possesses a moral and political purpose, as it represents a public good designed to support social mobility, citizenship, and belief in human potential. Education also offers the very real possibility of accessing better jobs than those who leave education before the diploma. The problem is that education policy has lost the connection between the philosophical and practical aspects of education, particularly public education. Educational policy has to be about more than linking the job market with the development of specific academic programs. It has to be about improving primary and secondary education so that pupils are better prepared for university and identify education with both becoming citizens able to confront problems and improvement of life chances.

The State cannot reduce inequality solely through policy, but it can invest in public services ; create a regulatory environment in the private sector that discourages pay differentials and other practices that foster the income gap and sustain the concentration of power in management ; and contribute to public debate on the social, political, and economic value of reducing inequality.The State can lead on the development of a narrative reinforcing the importance of egalitarian values to democracy and, on a practical and urgent level, effective solutions to global and local problems like climate change, poverty and economic insecurity, and tensions based on religion, race, and/or ethnicity. In other words, the State has the authority to frame addressing inequality as a means to confront other problems